Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Bot request
We definitely need a bot for replacing the dead links. The problems I encountered so far are with inline references in all (!) [year] Davis Cup articles and subarticles (World Groups, Zonal Groups), because all of them uses Template:DavisCupbox with embedded DC reference or http://www.daviscup.com/results/[zonal code].asp as external; [nation] Davis Cup team articles if they have References section (99% chance it will be a dead daviscup.com link); and occasionally players' pages with statistical Davis Cup information within their biography. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- 59 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/results" [1].
- 90 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/ties" [2]
- 39 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/news" [3]
- 10 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/about" [4]
- 3 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/shared" [5]
- 2 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/ranking" [6]
- some double listing of "www.daviscup.com/teams" (one converted from the template - that is fixed, but one dead as inner reference)
- Note that team statistics/all time records are gone forever (or it is just me unable to find its equivalent)
I think that's all. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bad "news". The news articles are unexchangeable. They're not using articleIDs anymore but the article titles connected with hyphens, thus it can not be replaced (there's also a news archive missing so older articles are unsearchable). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good news: http://archive.org still has the news archived so these links have to to be replaced manually. Also I put up a bot request here Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are there any more lists? As far as I can tell, we are now done. Fixing the links to the news articles is more tedious, but has been possible in most cases. Basically, you grab the title of the article from the Google cache, then search for the title on daviscup.com. It appears the article IDs have been remapped to URLs with the title of the article (spaces replaced by dashes). The bad news is that not all of them exist. I have been tracking down alternative sources in those cases, or just using archive.org. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed the same thing about the news articles. Thanks for helping out. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are there any more lists? As far as I can tell, we are now done. Fixing the links to the news articles is more tedious, but has been possible in most cases. Basically, you grab the title of the article from the Google cache, then search for the title on daviscup.com. It appears the article IDs have been remapped to URLs with the title of the article (spaces replaced by dashes). The bad news is that not all of them exist. I have been tracking down alternative sources in those cases, or just using archive.org. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good news: http://archive.org still has the news archived so these links have to to be replaced manually. Also I put up a bot request here Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bad "news". The news articles are unexchangeable. They're not using articleIDs anymore but the article titles connected with hyphens, thus it can not be replaced (there's also a news archive missing so older articles are unsearchable). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Rivalries
This seems to be a hot topic at the moment, especially with Armbrust tagging loads for deletion (note this has nothing to do with his actions). So after Blue Dog floated the idea of what consitutes a rivarly and after I saved one from deletion (basically the created page had nothing written on it and they had met 40 times and both players were in the top 3 of the world. Armbrust had it tagged for failiure of notablity), I propose that we come up with some guidelines of what make a rivalry notable for Wikipedia. Since the meaning of the word means anyone or team who playes each other. Meaning that rather insignificant rivalries such as Ivanovic and Jankovic by that definition rightly have a page. So what makes a rivalry notable? Here are some ideas just to get the ball rolling, none of which I am proposing. Is it that the pair of them are top ten players at some point and have played a significant/sufficent number of matches. Is it notable just because they meet in the semi and finals the whole time. Or is it notable based on experts opinon of the quality of the matches? KnowIG (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- There are 34 articles on rivalries at the moment. I think the ones with a head-to-head table and a picture should go. Actually I must say at most 3-4 articles of such topic are necessary the others are just "fillers". The must-haves are the Agassi–Sampras, Graf–Seles, Borg–McEnroe, Edberg–Lendl, Federer–Nadal and maybe the Williams Sisters rivalry. Regarding the future of creation of rivalry articles I suggest that both players should be inside the top five at the time of the rivalry, should have at least 10 matches, and should have met in at least two GS final or 5 GS semifinals (olimpics ,year-end, Davis Cup final also count). That would sort them out. A national rivalry like Ivanovic-Jankovic has a basis as well, but it could start a flood of such articles (imagine a Roddick-Isner rivalry e.g.). So a rivalry on nationalities, serves (aces), court type specialists, "hero of this or that" and such should be left out. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- And I almost forgot what is obvious : the head-to-head must be close. Just to prevent a Söderling-Federer page. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- How close though, mean for example Graf-Sabatini rivalry, exclude the 1st 8 and the last 7, I think and you'll find that it's 11-10 to Sabatini but it doesn't look at all close due to the lopsidedness although many of the matches went to a final set. KnowIG (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point KnowIG. Also it fails to show that some of those 1st 8 or last 7 matches may have been 3 set barnburners. I do disagree on your definition of rivalry though. I checked and have also seen the term "keen contention" being required. There are CERTAINLY more rivalries in tennis history than the ones Lajbi has mentioned. Evert-Navratilova and Laver-Rosewall would be at least as big a rivalry as any of the previous mentioned pairings. And the press has a lot to do with whether it's a rivalry because they stoke the fire and make it bigger and bigger. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's say the GS criteria overrides the head-to-head and then it easily qualifies. Otherways I would say a 29-11 is quite insufficient. Although narrowing to their Grand slam/Olimpics/WTA Ch. semis and finals results in a 10-2 H2H to Graf, which is also bad. It is only my opinion but I say that in this case time makes past champions and matches brighter and it isn't more than a nowdays Federer-Djokovic rivalry article, which has been deleted recently...
- And yes, Evert-Navratilova and Laver-Rosewall do meet the notability. I just ran trough the list to pick out some and these slipped out of my "scan". Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sidenote:WP:SPORTS compiled this short (!) list List of sports rivalries#Tennis.Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Er how is Santoro Safin rivalry, Safin only one once and they played less than 10 times, and skeptical about the Agassi Rafter rivalry as well just to pick a fault with the list, but really it backs it up the point know. Yes Safin and Santoro had a rivalry should it be on here no in my opinon. KnowIG (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. Upon my logic they simply fail. That's why I put an accent on short and not the quality or importance (Djokovic's rivalry is also listed on it, which I excluded in my previous comment. I just wanted to emphasize that we need only a few articles on this topic. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Er how is Santoro Safin rivalry, Safin only one once and they played less than 10 times, and skeptical about the Agassi Rafter rivalry as well just to pick a fault with the list, but really it backs it up the point know. Yes Safin and Santoro had a rivalry should it be on here no in my opinon. KnowIG (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sidenote:WP:SPORTS compiled this short (!) list List of sports rivalries#Tennis.Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point KnowIG. Also it fails to show that some of those 1st 8 or last 7 matches may have been 3 set barnburners. I do disagree on your definition of rivalry though. I checked and have also seen the term "keen contention" being required. There are CERTAINLY more rivalries in tennis history than the ones Lajbi has mentioned. Evert-Navratilova and Laver-Rosewall would be at least as big a rivalry as any of the previous mentioned pairings. And the press has a lot to do with whether it's a rivalry because they stoke the fire and make it bigger and bigger. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- How close though, mean for example Graf-Sabatini rivalry, exclude the 1st 8 and the last 7, I think and you'll find that it's 11-10 to Sabatini but it doesn't look at all close due to the lopsidedness although many of the matches went to a final set. KnowIG (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- And I almost forgot what is obvious : the head-to-head must be close. Just to prevent a Söderling-Federer page. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
<cr> As I look at that list for the first time my first impulse would be to dump Federer/Hewitt, Nadal/Djokavich, Federer/Nalbandian, Rafter/Agassi, Safin/Santoro, and add Court/King, Stolle/Emerson, Borg/Connors (or have it a 3-way of Borg/McEnroe/Connors because that's what it really was), maybe Perry/Crawford or Perry/Vines. Anyway that would be my inclination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Colors of tournament categories in ITF articles
The colors for the money categories in the ITF tournaments are quite flashy in my opinion. If the 10k, 25K and 50K may be OK, the 75K and 100K are simply too colorful. The 100K is simply wrong. On a tennis player's article for example, if that player let's say, plays a 100K final and his/hers opponent does not have an article on Wiki you simply can't see that player's name (red background, red font since not having an article). My suggestion is to lighten them up a little bit or something...
From this:
| $100,000 tournaments |
| $75,000 tournaments |
| $50,000 tournaments |
| $25,000 tournaments |
| $10,000 tournaments |
to this:
| $100,000 tournaments |
| $75,000 tournaments |
| $50,000 tournaments |
| $25,000 tournaments |
| $10,000 tournaments |
Suggestions and modifications are welcomed. Thanks (Gabinho>:) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
- I can say I've never been one for color categories but since most people around here like them, your choices are much much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. The colouring seems a bit superfluous, but if we must have it, please do improve the contrast. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Still if the second (new) version will be used, I suggest differentiating 75K from 10K a bit more. They have quite pale shade in their current form to mix up (or is it just my display?). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh. I changed my mind. It's fine like this. My eyes are still morning blurry. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes i agree with your colors, i like them better then the current colors. Keroks (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking to differentiate 100K from 70K a little bit:
- Yes i agree with your colors, i like them better then the current colors. Keroks (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh. I changed my mind. It's fine like this. My eyes are still morning blurry. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Still if the second (new) version will be used, I suggest differentiating 75K from 10K a bit more. They have quite pale shade in their current form to mix up (or is it just my display?). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. The colouring seems a bit superfluous, but if we must have it, please do improve the contrast. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
| $100,000 tournaments |
| $75,000 tournaments |
| $50,000 tournaments |
| $25,000 tournaments |
| $10,000 tournaments |
Gabinho>:) 09:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, I like your first modification much more. That 75,000 is way too harsh. Maybe a pale yellow would work but the FBCEB1 was just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Like both as it tones it down. Perhaps the second version you came up with would be less conterversal as all you have done is done a different shade, but happy with what ever the outcome is KnowIG (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- A lighter tone for yellow and it's perfect
Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- My final suggestion. If you have another please add it. Thanks for the feedback. Gabinho>:) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- A lighter tone for yellow and it's perfect
- Like both as it tones it down. Perhaps the second version you came up with would be less conterversal as all you have done is done a different shade, but happy with what ever the outcome is KnowIG (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
| $100,000 tournaments |
| $75,000 tournaments |
| $50,000 tournaments |
| $25,000 tournaments |
| $10,000 tournaments |
Tremendous.
. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good to me Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- BTW according to Google about 150 pages use the current ITF table. Do you plan to replace it with a bot or one-by-one? (if the latter then a helping hand could be useful)Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I thought about replacing them but I do not know how to work with bots. If anyone has the ability to replace those with a bot then she/he should do it. If not, I guess we have to replace them one by one... (Gabinho>:) 20:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
- BTW according to Google about 150 pages use the current ITF table. Do you plan to replace it with a bot or one-by-one? (if the latter then a helping hand could be useful)Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- its better and more pleasing to the eye, here is a suggestion on how you can do it faster and not do it one-by-one, you copy the whole text and replace the color on word or notepad, then it will be faster. Dencod16 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I think what he means is that there are 150 other pages on wikipedia that use the old color scheme. It's not just 100x on one article. Unless he uses a "bot" that goes through all wiki pages at once he'd have to edit 150 articles separately. I'm bot clueless so I'm no help there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think about 10k color? It had none and I added this shade: #f0f8ff. Should I keep that category with no color? (Gabinho>:) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
- #f0f8ff is the original 10k shade on Timea and Riske article, and to many other articles that I've edited or started (eg. Vitalia Diatchenko, Elina Svitolina) and I think it should remain as it is. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think about 10k color? It had none and I added this shade: #f0f8ff. Should I keep that category with no color? (Gabinho>:) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
- Actually I think what he means is that there are 150 other pages on wikipedia that use the old color scheme. It's not just 100x on one article. Unless he uses a "bot" that goes through all wiki pages at once he'd have to edit 150 articles separately. I'm bot clueless so I'm no help there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have no idea about this discussion until I see the table colours on Alison Riske and Tímea Babos been changed. Overall, I like the proposal, but next time please do mind to add in an edit summary like "per discussion on WT:TENNIS" while making changes to articles to avoid future confusion. Thanks. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Propose creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Tables for reference and for ease of usage in future. Appropriate WTA, ATP, GS and ITF table format can be added into it. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Rremark: I saw user Dencod16 changed the shade for blue and added a legend like this one on the 2011 ITF Women's Circuit article:
| $100,000 tournaments |
| $75,000 tournaments |
| $50,000 tournaments |
| $25,000 tournaments |
| $10,000 tournaments |
Shall we use thid version with the lighter tone for blue as the FINAL version? (Gabinho>:) 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
- I don't like it. It's too flashy. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The reason that i changed it to lighter tone because the former one is darker to the other colors and don't blend. And if you put it with the yellow it makes the yellow pop out so much. And as you can see as the original one who thoguht of the concept of creating colors for the tournaments rather than just blue and white. There was a unison in the colors that they are all bright and blends with each other. Dencod16 (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like your version more! We should keep it as the final one! Gabinho>:) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I like the third more than the other one. Good job!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like your version more! We should keep it as the final one! Gabinho>:) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This page is currently a collection of tables, not an encyclopaedia article - we're almost in statistical almanac territory in its current state. For such a high-profile event, the coverage is very disappointing; is there any chance of some sourced text? Analysis, background, context, discussion? Any insight that could be brought to this article (and others in the same series) would be very welcome. Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want. If you look at all the other Davis Cup years in wiki, this year has more prose than pretty much any other. All the articles would need to be augmented. Analysis would be personal research and not allowed but perhaps there are magazines that have given detailed analysis that could be used. Discussion sounds kind of blog-like (not allowed) but certainly background could be expanded by those who follow this event much more closely than I. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Consistency is no argument for being consistently poor! If any article can be improved independently of the others, then so be it. Events can be discussed and analysed using reliable sources without original research. But a bare list of statistics is not an article, and far from the best we could offer. Knepflerle (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll put my two pence in here as well. All of the sub pages e.g. world group, apart from 2010 and 2011, I bet you most of the pages are unsourced, which is a complete joke considering the DC website! So if the basics are not being met, how can one state that the article should be improved etc. By means you are more than welcome to do what you want to the 2010 article, I just thought that I would mention the bigger issue! KnowIG (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to go into a deep argument here but I was thinking on the same in general for a while when I checked the accomplishments of the our project. We have two featured articles, which I guess is one of the lowest number among all projects. The two are Wii Tennis and Mario Power Tennis those I suppose give the credit to WP:GAMES more than to us (both are low-importance on tennis scale). On the other hand we have three featured lists (quite well-written) that means that tennis articles resemble more to lists than to articles (almanac comparison). I was wondering in the past 10 days or so if we can put up a common task focusing the improvement of one article (could be the 2010 DC) to improve it together to a status worth to nominate for FA. I agree that these areas are quite difficult to reference (in English) but at least we can try. If we find a Serbian contributor for example he could surely provide us with a full coverage of almost every event if in none other than Serbian (at least on Serbia's way to final). Any ideas on this? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll put my two pence in here as well. All of the sub pages e.g. world group, apart from 2010 and 2011, I bet you most of the pages are unsourced, which is a complete joke considering the DC website! So if the basics are not being met, how can one state that the article should be improved etc. By means you are more than welcome to do what you want to the 2010 article, I just thought that I would mention the bigger issue! KnowIG (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Consistency is no argument for being consistently poor! If any article can be improved independently of the others, then so be it. Events can be discussed and analysed using reliable sources without original research. But a bare list of statistics is not an article, and far from the best we could offer. Knepflerle (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Cryptic abbreviations
Hi, maybe someone here could make sense of this? Check out Alisa Kleybanova#Singles performance timeline. I have no idea what 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, LQ, QF, and SF mean. Could someone here decipher? Thanks much, --JaGatalk 06:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, it's pretty standard tennis nomenclature. That's the round the player lost in. 1R=First Round, LQ=lost in qualifier, QF=quarterfinals, etc... Certainly there should be a key as there is at Tennis performance timeline comparison (women). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! --JaGatalk 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I created a template for that. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think your version [7] is too detailed, and a section heading will often make the perfomance table a part of the "Key" section. I suggest briefly showing what the abbreviation stands for so it's easier to remember:
- I created a template for that. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! --JaGatalk 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Key
| W | F | SF | QF | 4R | 3R | 2R | 1R |
Won tournament, or reached Final, SemiFinal, QuarterFinal or Round 4, 3, 2, 1.
| LQ | A |
Lost in Qualification, or Absent from tournament.
- Yes, it's better. Actually I'v just converted what JaGatalk created (and shortened a bit that one as well, but it's fine to do it further). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooh damn. It's already existed Template:Performance timeline legend! Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I like {{performance key}} better. --JaGatalk 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How to add a category?
I've not done this before and I didn't want to mess it up. There are tennis categories for hard court, grass, etc... but how do I add the category for wood? In following the protocol for the other surfaces I want to add the following: "Category:Wood court tennis tournaments". Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- There might also need to be an addition of wood to "Category:Tennis_court_surfaces". Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Figured it out Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
While checking Special:Uncategorized pages for uncategorized football articles, I stumbled upon Rafael Nadal in 2011. Indepedent of how this project handles these articles – the content of said "article", if at all, should be included into Rafael Nadal, shouldn't it? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010 closed as no consensus so Rafael Nadal in 2010 is still here. Nadal is the world number one so a 2011 article was expected. I have added categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Five qualifying draws at AfD
Five qualifying draws have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Right lets get something to good article or featured article or list status
Righty. I've had a go at the 2010 Hopman Cup and have sent it for a peer review please add comments to the review. The 2011 Hopman Cup is coming along nicely as well. So as I say lets get these two to good aritcle or featured list whatever is more appropiate. KnowIG (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have referenced 2009 Hopman Cup which should almost be ready. 03md 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I really find the text very short. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the 2009 hopman cup article the lead fails the article and the references all are first party, I'll work on the refs. Afro (Talk) 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I really find the text very short. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Files to be renamed
Can anyone help with these two file renames? [8] and [9]? I have nominated them for rename on their talk page but I guess they are hard to spot. Thanks! (Gabinho>:) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
Fed Cup team statistics
While reading the article Great Britain Fed Cup team, I noticed that Sarah Borwell was credited in the 'Current and former player information' table as having played 5 matches in 6 ties, and I could not find any explanation of this curiosity. Now, I have taken the time to look at the Fed Cup statistics on the Fed Cup website, and I have found that the tie in which she is credited as having played in without having played a match was a doubles match partnering Melanie South against Mandy Minella and Fabienne Thill of the Luxembourg Fed Cup team which Great Britain won as a 'w/o'. Unfortunately, I do not know whether this is an error or whether this is the way statistics for Fed Cup teams are consistently presented in Wikipedia. If it is an error, it simply needs to be corrected. If this is the way the statistics are presented, these tables need some explanation to that effect. Coyets (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Just noticed something, when looking at naming conventions of lists. "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places. The titles of these articles usually begin with "list of" or "timeline of"." This means that articles such as Roger Federer career statistics, Andy Murray career statistics and Serena Williams career statistics etc fail naming conventions as they are mainly a list of finals and prize money won. And therefore should be called List of Roger Federer's tennis career finals etc or something similar, with the H2H with the top ten removed and placed somewhere else. Rather than what is presented at the moment. Any arguements of why it should stay how it is not a list? KnowIG (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- A list article usually has similar entries throughout the page. Roger Federer career statistics and the others have different sections with different types of content, for example finals, performance timeline (all results in large tournaments), head-to-head results, and career earnings with season statistics. Each section may be a list in table format but that doesn't mean the whole page should be named as a list article. Something like "List of Roger Federer career statistics" would be an unnecessarily convoluted name. And if we made "List/Timeline of Roger Federer's tennis career finals" then some things wouldn't logically belong there, but keeping the career statistics together in one page seems sensible to me (especially for all the players who don't have as many finals as Federer). Also note that lots of list articles don't have "list" in the name. See for example Category:Featured lists which presumably have names considered appropriate. I support the current naming "X career statistics". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are many FL's which don't start with "List of (...)" including the ongoing nominations by User:KV5 with the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster series of articles which he plans to bring to the FLC recently promoted lists of his are the A and B with the ongoing C. As far as I'm aware the naming conventions haven't been a problem with any of the nominations, and since these are of the standards all lists should strive to be I don't see a problem with the name. Afro (Talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For those who update Templates for Top ten *** tennis players
The actual ATP rankings lists show that there were no positions moved but in reality they did as you probably noticed from the update of2011 ATP World Tour#Singles table. But those who missed it, it would be nice to get the navboxes to the latest rankings till the Australian Open begins. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Malou Ejdesgaard
The infobox about Malou Ejdesgaard says that she is currently ranked 717th on the world ranking. Very well possibly, but the infobox also says that her highest ranking was 755th. One of the two rankings is incorrect, but I can't find which one. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've corrected the issue. Afro (Talk) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Trouble in Grand Slam Land
I'm having a wee bit of trouble conveying things to a MrMarble (and his alias 99.192.xxx.xx) in the Grand Slam (tennis) article and I thought maybe we could use some help. Could others here take a look at the article and my suggestions under talk and see if they can help us out. It mainly springs from differing opinions on what constitutes winning "The Grand Slam" and the ITF bylaws vs ATP, WTA, The slams themselves and wikipedia consensus, etc. We disagree for the most part and I don't want the article wrecked where maybe others here would have some valuable suggestions. I'm getting tired of tweaking things over and over again. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it was me who was having trouble...
- Anyway, just wanted to say that I have no aliases. 99.192...is a different poster, as you probably know fuynck. I most likely won't be checking this page so I hope further discussion about the matter is happening on Grand Slam discussion page. Thank you.--Mrmarble (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- My bad on the 99.192.xxx.xx. There were two edits right in the same bunch of reverts that I thought were you. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I'll take a look tomorrow KnowIG (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- My bad on the 99.192.xxx.xx. There were two edits right in the same bunch of reverts that I thought were you. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Men's First Names in lists
I went back through all the archives and couldn't find talk on the subject of what names to use for men in tennis lists. There have been a few reverts on pages I've worked on lately and I'd like some opinions. For instance, let's look at Don Budge, Bill Tilden, Bobby Riggs, Bill Johnston and Tony Roche. Those are names everyone knows and the names they were pretty much always called in the press so a good point for keeping those versions in the lists. Those are also the names under which wikipedia has their articles. But another good point would be listing them under the names the official major tournaments have them listed. Looking at Wimbledon that would be John D. Budge, William T. Tilden, Robert L. Riggs, William M. Johnston and Anthony D. Roche. Now while I have heard and read articles that occasionally write William Tilden and William Johnston I've not seen any write Robert Riggs, John Budge or Anthony Roche. There is also their "actual" names that we could use which would be - John Budge, William Tilden II, Robert Riggs, William Johnston and Anthony Roche. Of course if we decide on "actual" names then we would need to change Ken Rosewall to Kenneth Rosewall, Rod Laver to Rodney Laver, Vitas Gerulaitis to Vytautas Gerulaitis and Pete Sampras to Petros Sampras.
So no one way is a perfect fit and I wanted some other tennis fan's thoughts. And don't even get me started on the ladies side of the field with their maiden or married names :-0. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as other WP:Biography articles standards go they list names in their most common form (e.g. artists upon their stage-name) immediately followed by an introduction with their real (full) name in bold and birthdate and place in brackets. The case with women is the same. Their commonly used name (which gives a better search result in Wikipedia) is the basis of naming convention but the introduction can list their changed or full name. Courteney Cox is listed as this and Courtney Cox Arquette redirects there while Courteney Bass Cox is in the introduction. He ran under the maiden name in the first five season of Friends and with her married name from the very first episode of sixth season to the end of tenth. That would give an 50-50, but fans recognized her as Courtney Cox so it gives her the title of her article. As for main draw tables the official form is what tournament scorecards use. E.g. Alexandr Dolgopolov was listed Oleksandr Dolgopolov Jr. until the day he had changed his name in mid 2010 and thus half of the wikipages on tournament draws list him with the latter but redirects to the actual. Renaming isn't ex post facto. Considering this John D. Budge should be the correct one but with redirect to John Budge, but for Pete Sampras I can't imagine an ATP tour event calling him Petros Sampras (maybe on Junior level, but that doesn't belong here). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the redirect with John D. Budge would be to Don Budge since that's the wiki article and the only name I've ever heard of used. There is still some problem with using what the "official" tournament draw uses. Wimbledon used only first initials and for the ladies often only under the husband's name i.e. Mrs Frederick Clauson. So I have a feeling there will be many exceptions to the tournament draw rule you are suggesting. The other thing would be in a list of Major winners where each of the 4 Majors may have used a different form of the player's name... which do we use? And for many older tournaments we don't have an "official" draw sheet in hand, just something printed in a magazine or a book author. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well to be fair for Tiden I've seen both used. Either on Queens or LA Will and Bill are definatly both used within the same list. I see the problem as people think they are seperate people but have never seen a discussion on this before, but I think we should use the more common name e.g. Bill Tiden with a William redirect if one doesn't exist to Bill KnowIG (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the redirect with John D. Budge would be to Don Budge since that's the wiki article and the only name I've ever heard of used. There is still some problem with using what the "official" tournament draw uses. Wimbledon used only first initials and for the ladies often only under the husband's name i.e. Mrs Frederick Clauson. So I have a feeling there will be many exceptions to the tournament draw rule you are suggesting. The other thing would be in a list of Major winners where each of the 4 Majors may have used a different form of the player's name... which do we use? And for many older tournaments we don't have an "official" draw sheet in hand, just something printed in a magazine or a book author. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Day-by-Day Summaries
I wanted to alert you to the fact that KNOWIG constantly reverts these on the 2011 Australian Open. It has been consensus ever since 2009 Australian Open. I just wanted to alert you that [[10]] was to merge them back into the articles. So, let the community decide rather than two editors in an edit revert war.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- How about you see Wiki size meaning that it should be a daughter page. But since that page has been deleted then it shouldn't be there at all. Look at Wiki size. KnowIG (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, you are clearly in the wrong here because size alone is not justified in removing past consensus about article structure, composition, and components. So, if you want to go look to 2009 Australian Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon Championships, 2009 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2010 French Open, 2010 Wimbledon Championships, 2010 US Open. I would love to discuss the merits of these for inclusion in the main article. These give a good day-by-day covering of the slam on the main courts where the great matches takes place during the tournament. If you take these away you will be leaving out the key aspect to any encyclopedia a when of what happened during a tournament. So, it is not clearly cut and dry as you want to make it KnowIG.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Those tables are not encylpedic and in history we don't care when things happened. And all your doing is regutitaing shite and repeting what has already been written in the events section. BTW the men's dubs section you wrote is poor. Full of Americanisms and totally unsourced, just like anything else you've written. KnowIG (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would advise to keep this discussion civil. Please, do not go after someones writing style as being nationalistic, and mine was just the facts of the seeds and what rounds they got knocked out. The only argument you could make is they were unsourced. The only national thing I put in was to call the Bhupathi and Paes team an Indian duo and that would be correct. By the way, you have violated the 3RR on here, which means you need to watch out or else risk a block by an admin.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- No I haven't you did three revisons in a row of the same thing. And btw a threepeat is an americanism go and learn something KnowIG (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would advise to keep this discussion civil. Please, do not go after someones writing style as being nationalistic, and mine was just the facts of the seeds and what rounds they got knocked out. The only argument you could make is they were unsourced. The only national thing I put in was to call the Bhupathi and Paes team an Indian duo and that would be correct. By the way, you have violated the 3RR on here, which means you need to watch out or else risk a block by an admin.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never gave my two cents on this issue but in reading it today this "day by day" prose was talked about when it was a daughter page and the consensus was "not" to remove, it was to merge it. To be honest I think it was better as a separate article since 2011 is way too long even without it. My own opinion on merit is unsure but it doesn't really matter now as the consensus was to keep it in some form, either separate or merged (with merge preferred). I guess you could make a new page for it as a daughter with a slightly different title but unless/until some mediated cabal is brought together it needs to remain in some form, by consensus. Maybe those talking merge didn't realize the size of the main article was already quite large? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Till its resolved I re-added the info from the blanked page and linked to it from the main article. Consensus, good or bad, was to keep it in some form. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the record : The three-revert rule is counted from reverting (=deleting) Zwilson14's merge when ab initio he brought the consensus into force. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know I only did it twice, so I did not break the rule, and I am glad you went back and looked at the edit history of the page in question. I fixed the Americanism in the sentence with threepeat and put three title steak or something to that effect per KnowIG suggestion.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No you did it 3 time. once to revert me, then you deleted, then you put in and then reverted me = 4 on the same thing smart arse, you are guilty of 3RR KnowIG (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- But you are as well. It would have been nice if you had posted the debate here earlier since you are the more veteran editor in Wiki. Please stay calm : it doesn't matter who did it (unless an admin recognizes it), but to learn that next time don't overrule each other and ignore the guidelines! Neither of you. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never denied that I did. I was mearly pointing out SWWWWWH faults as well as I am a hot head but I am fair and doesn't want to take 100% blame. I do appolgies for my actions I am still very young so I live and learn with whole timing of talk page use etc. KnowIG (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have fixed the page back to the way things were, and it did not increase the page size much because we are just mirroring another page to the 2011 Australian Open page. I think that's a fair compromise to make on this matter.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never denied that I did. I was mearly pointing out SWWWWWH faults as well as I am a hot head but I am fair and doesn't want to take 100% blame. I do appolgies for my actions I am still very young so I live and learn with whole timing of talk page use etc. KnowIG (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- But you are as well. It would have been nice if you had posted the debate here earlier since you are the more veteran editor in Wiki. Please stay calm : it doesn't matter who did it (unless an admin recognizes it), but to learn that next time don't overrule each other and ignore the guidelines! Neither of you. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No you did it 3 time. once to revert me, then you deleted, then you put in and then reverted me = 4 on the same thing smart arse, you are guilty of 3RR KnowIG (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know I only did it twice, so I did not break the rule, and I am glad you went back and looked at the edit history of the page in question. I fixed the Americanism in the sentence with threepeat and put three title steak or something to that effect per KnowIG suggestion.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry as well, and would hope that others would forgive me when I err! So, I accept it and give it to KnowIG!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's a fair compromise so I changed it back. There is already an edit war going over it so I believe the best course of action is to discuss it here or the 2011 talk page before messing with that particular item. If the two of you agree, after talking, then change it... otherwise I would leave it as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Lilian Watson
Lilian Watson's (1884 Wimbledon finalist) page spells her name Lillian. Both 100 Years of Wimbledon by Lance Tingay, and Wimbledon - The Official History of the Championships by John Barrett, spell her name Lilian.Rmallett (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also the USTA spells it with one l. Afro (Talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- AP and ESPN have articles with Lillian, CBS sports with Lilian. The sonyericssonopen website has Lillian while Sports Illustrated uses both spellings. The UK Independent uses Lilian while the UK Telegraph uses Lillian. What a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the very least, they should both be link destinations, with one redirecting to the other, as is done with Harold Mahony/Mahoney, and many others.Rmallett (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- AP and ESPN have articles with Lillian, CBS sports with Lilian. The sonyericssonopen website has Lillian while Sports Illustrated uses both spellings. The UK Independent uses Lilian while the UK Telegraph uses Lillian. What a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal
The tennis portal is a mess. Lets set a team up to sort it out. KnowIG (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you give me a link to the portal, and I will see what I could do to make it better, please?!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's at the top of the page the little box with a yellow ball saying tennis portal. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry too much I've worked out how to update the content but I am not going to touch the layout. KnowIG (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The news section is really one year old?? OMG! It definitely needs some update. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry too much I've worked out how to update the content but I am not going to touch the layout. KnowIG (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's at the top of the page the little box with a yellow ball saying tennis portal. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Un-Wiki-link in ATP Challenger articles
I noticed that the player names in Challenger draws are unwikilinked (because the player is not notable for the moment). My concern is: if that player let's say wins a Challenger or takes part to a main draw on an ATP World Tour tournament and becomes notable, all those articles with his name on them would not link to him. I propose to wiki link any names in a tennis draw because they could become notable and the "What links here" tool would not be useful for them. What do you say? (Gabinho>:) 18:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
- Terrible idea, to link everyone, just 'incase'KnowIG (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Terrible? Reconsider your words please. (Gabinho>:) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
- Why should I it's not offensive. KnowIG (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Terrible? Reconsider your words please. (Gabinho>:) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
- My meager opinion would be no. Many, if not most, of these players will never become notable... then we have red links to nothing, forever. If they do become notable enough for an article there are enough editors that things get taken care of, or if one makes an article the name can be searched and found and linked at that time. Maybe some other editors will give us their thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can always go back and link all the articles he appears in, if/when he becomes notable. I think the ATP and ITF gives a pretty good tournament history of the players, example. Afro (Talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I found this policy by searching the wiki. The link is Red link and what it is about. Go read all!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then it looks ugly and temps mugs to create articles which we then have to delete. KnowIG (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hey it's pretty specific, "create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic" and "articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article". So if one thinks an article should be created for the link go ahead and red link it. I've done this myself hoping a page would be built. This shows someone they should be creating an article for that link. However it does not say to create links to something that "could become notable." That would be putting the cart before the horse and should not be done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- A simple Google search will list the articles mentioning the newly created name. It is quite a short work to do the job as I've done it a few times with this method. There won't be a hundred of them since a sole ATP main draw first round can qualify someone to be notable so a couple of Challenger articles could possible link to it at most. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Davis Cup table following the Finals section pattern
I've "invented" something like this : Michael Venus (tennis)#Davis Cup .285.29. Any ideas/comments on the general introduction of such scoreboards? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The colors used to define groups could be more specific and someone who's uneducated in the subject will have no clue about the arrows signaling the outcome of the match. Afro (Talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some tips to improve it? I would like to leave as simple as possible e.g. that's why I chose the arrow intead of a more detailed description. Also I'd rather focus on the player than on the whole Davis Cup match. Maybe expanding the sidenote arrow key will help. And for the colors : it's up to you, there are just initial ones go fetch here what you'd prefer to have. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Example
This looks better and allows people with color blind issues to get the correct information out of the chart. I put in symbols to do that.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
| Group membership |
| World Group (0) |
| Group I (0) |
| Group II (5) |
| Group III (0) |
| Group IV (0) |
indicates the outcome of the Davis Cup match followed by the score, date, place of event, the zonal classification and its phase, and the court surface.
I'm not really excited with the colors or the complexity of the chart for novices. Too harsh imho, especially the pink. If the colors scattered throughout an article are too bright or have too much contrast the article starts to take on the look of a coloring book which drives the eyes to the colors more than the well written prose or information in those charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But once again, color can be used in minor information without the need for symbols. I'm not saying this chart in particular but if let's say some chart uses color to signify whether a player is left or right handed that is not important information and would not need anything but the color. Or one could say a few words in prose after the chart saying something like "the years 1968-1972, 1978-1979, and 1990" were played in Michigan, but have the chart show that in blue with no symbols at all. Just so we're on the same page here. And in looking at the chart I do notice the incorrect nomenclature for showing the tiebreak score. Remember it's not 7–66, it's 7–6(8–6), as vetted out here awhile back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Example 2We already have this on Nadal's Rafael Nadal career statistics#ITF Davis Cup subpage. I don't know what the colors are for in this piece. Any ideas on this compared to the above one? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Example 3From Gustavo Kuerten's main page...Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
SynthesisPlease give me feedback on these as its current unsystematic appearances are more like chaos.
I picked the third one and will inculde it in the article guideline as well. If anyone oppose to this let me know. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Bold markup for rank numbersI haven't seen any guidance regarding whether or not rankings should be bold, as seen in this example with "World No. 65" and "No. 65". Is anybody aware of any prior discussion about this? If not, can we establish what should be done about ranking numbers? —LOL T/C 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Coaches?I've noticed that the project article guideline page has a separate section for coaches (and a dead template for it). So I've arbitrarily expanded the notability criteria for them. I would happily accept comment from you on this:
Since these are very rare article types, the most common case is when a player chose coaching after retirement. In all other cases reveal the coach's background to see if he/she notable. It is important as it could easily happen that a child player is coached by a non-proffessional or non-tennis-affiliated relative and cotton to him during his career (see Toni Nadal). The minimum requirement that can obviously qualify without doubt for coaches of players are:
These also ensure that the notability of one-hit wonders' coaches doesn't automatically granted with his/her coachee's success. (See Roberto Carretero for example) This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players' coaches are to be omitted otherwise it has to be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've created a template for them. Please take a look : {{Infobox Tennis Coach biography}}. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently updated Zoltan Kuharszky and planning to do Marian Vajda but I was wondering that we should compile a list of articles needing coach infobox to gather a task force for that. I presume there are far more coach-oriented articles, than I first thought. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Partial list of articles needing (updating to, expanding with) coach infoboxSome of these people are more notable as coaches than as players, and also their article is expandable with prose based on it: Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Add
Expand Updating the Guideline page is neededObserving the recent discussions here I came to the decision we might update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines as it contains various obsolete information and it should be also expanded a bit more regarding scores, colors , rankings, notability and other fixes. For example even the example articles don't follow the tiebreak upper index directives (2008 Queen's Club Championships – Singles under the Draws section) and it offers a template for coaches that has been already deleted... The example for a perfect(?) player article shows Pete Sampras' though his highest ranking is in bold within its infobox, which is unnecessary. I found three bolded rankings in biography pages just today (not counting Sampras') by randomly browsing through player's articles so it has to be definitely included in the guidelines. I would also add an example infobox to show how it should look next to the player infobox section and some more FAQ on free pictures (linked to the appropriate WP Help page). The colors principles (for color-blinded people and monochrome monitor or black and white printer users) are omitted in all ATP titles/runner-ups tables. I guess it all could had been prevented if it has been an example table in it. Also if we can agree in a Davis Cup pattern I would also recommend indicating it in a separate section as well. The notability criteria for tennis players is also needed (it is easily expandable from Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Tennis). The whole article is just too "general" and not specified to tennis itself. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Matches Tennis dailyCan someone help me to find out what are these? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Hello! Frankly, I mean to clarify the idea until you're doing a project to develop a daily page is where all the tennis matches that are played Just like the site http://www.livescore.com/tennis/ But I did not mean to better clarify what I think I hope to work on this project because I am sure it will Succeed on Wikipedia Thank you محمد البكور (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC) WTA color schemesIs there any reason why the color scheme below isn't used for the calendar pages (2009, 2010 and 2011 WTA Tour) ?
These are the colors used in the Clijsters, Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Serena and Venus career stats articles, and many other player pages. I think this scheme is easier on the eyes than the one currently used, plus it matches the ATP colors. So, using these colors, the pages would look something like this. --JMDP (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
ATP Qualifying DrawsI know that there is a new trend for putting these up, so this is a quick heads-up regarding archive qualifying draws if anyone is interested in creating articles using them. It is still possible to find draws from 2001 and onwards on the ATP's website and an example article can be found here in due course. Totalinarian (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Website changesJust a little heads up. The WTA have changed it's website address again! Cause it was soneyericssontour this time last year! Anyway the latest change sees wtatour.com changed to wtatennis.com. Links should be fine but just be aware if you find any duffs as this is what has changed. Also any articles with links to the LTA website need to be changed as they had a revamp a few weeks ago. KnowIG (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Hello, not sure what you all think about this article. For me its a step too far down the WP:LISTCRUFT route, but then I think that about quite a few of the articles on tennis on Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought that I'd draw attention to it as if nothing else it needs clearing up by someone with more time on their hands than I have; I'll let you tennis people decide what you want to do with it! --Pretty Green (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Performance Timeline Tables for ATP PlayersI have noticed that the performance timelines for ATP players have been changed in recent weeks. Editors have begun including players' results from the ATP World Tour 500 Series, ATP World Tour 250 Series, Davis Cup etc. I was just wondering if this is really necessary as it makes the table quite lengthy. Furthermore, they have introduced a new colour scheme along with it for headings such as Grand Slams, ATP Masters Series 1000 etc. I for one would like to see the old format restored, but would like to ask what you guys think about this first. JayJ47 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
But I'm sure there's a whole lot more. So what should we do about it? Leave it as is or change the tables back to normal? My suggestion is that we should keep the original format as it is easier to understand because it only lists a players achievements from the major events e.g. Grand Slams and Masters tournaments, and it is far less lengthy. JayJ47 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Reverting tables back to the old onesI'm going to start changing the tables back to what they use to look like. So if you guys could help me do so, that would be great. JayJ47 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Doubled points in ATP rankingsDo any of you know why the Indian Wells Masters points have been doubled for the qualifiers? All of them, Devvarman, Young, Harrison, Russel, etc received double points apparently without any reason (no it's not the point for qualification nor it is the 2010 IW points, it's simply multiplied by two). It would be useful to include the concerning rule to the 2011 ATP World Tour Finals (as the one with the actual race) ,in ATP Rankings and all articles containing a point distribution table (ATP World Tours). An example for it from Somdev Devvarman's ATP point breakdown :
And he really got 212 points in total for his performance. He earned more points than a quarterfinalist. He moved a bunch of places in the top 100 as a consequence. I'm a bit confused. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
New template Template:Student athleteFeel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Your opinions and adviceA recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. bon week-end à tous --Geneviève (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I've nominated Oscar Wegner for deletion. You'll see why when you visit the page and read my comment on the AfD entry. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the Oscar Wegner page should have been deleted as it did not comply with Wikipedia rules for writing a biography of a living person. However, Oscar Wegner is a notable person in the tennis world and there should be a Wikipedia page on him. The comments of Bushranger, MLA, Armbrust, Undertaker, MBelgrano and Fyunck are inaccurate or inappropriate. Mr. Wegner would like to write the text for his own page but I have explained to him that this is strongly discouraged, so I volunteer to write an unbiased, accurate, referenced article about him. As I am new to Wikipedia I need help in how to do so correctly and also need guidance on how to contact others and be contacted here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help in this regard.Operalives (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I thank you, Fyunck and Lajbi, for your suggestions. Question: Is there any way to correspond privately with those of you who are editors and/or administrators, or are all discussions "out in the open"? Operalives (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Fyunck. I am starting to get t he hang of it.Operalives (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I think this requires major modifications. It does not contain list of most number of ATP singles titles (only given details of Jimmy connors with 109 but does not list top 10 in the list) which is much important. There should also be a separate section on most number of ATP match wins. Also detailing is needed on all the sections. I think the same should be arranged in the following way
I think Player records can be moved to separate page. Please let me know ur thoughts before proceeding with the changes. Fahidka (talk) 15:34 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Longest match winning streak - match wise detailsI think it is good to have a separate page containing match by match details of longest match winning streaks, especially for the top 10 winning streaks listed here. Let me know your opinion so that I can create separate page containing the details. Fahidka (talk) 16:40 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Conforming to current accepted MOSWould it be worth me going through all of the old tennis tournament draw articles and changing the draw templates to the ones currently in use? For example, 2011 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has the tennis3-v2 template with a top and bottom half, and also a finals section at the top, where the finals draw has full names, and the main draw has first initial, then last name. However, 2006 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has a different and inconsistent layout. I'm perfectly happy to go through all the old main draws, as a majority of them are simple to fix, but I just want to clarify that we have the tennis3-v2 layout as the preferred. SellymeTalk 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Tennis event Template for Multi-sport eventsI've created a template for tennis events at multi-sport events like the Olympics, PanAm Games, etc., called {{Tennis event MSE}}. It's similar to the tennis event boxes at Masters 1000 events, with the addition of the mixed doubles event (in preparation for the 20122 Summer OGs and the 2011 PanAm Games). But, the links to the other events below the champion information are repetitive if the events have an infobox with links to the other events (see Tennis at the 2011 Pan American Games – Men's Singles for an example). Also, some previous tennis events' singles and doubles competitions are named differently than the ATP/WTA events are (i.e. Men's singles instead of Men's Singles. Should they be capitalized or not capitalized? Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Can anyone identify this tournament?Check this out: 2011 Samsung Championships Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I personally think it's a hoax... (Gabinho>:) 10:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC))
I nominated, but then withdrew my nomination for deletion of Fred Hagist after further consideration. He lost a Cincinnati Masters final back in the 1950s before it was a Masters (was known as the Tri-State Tennis Tournament), before the Open Era and the well organised ATP tour. The question comes down to how does the WP:NTENNIS apply to pre-Open era tennis players? Does criterion #3: "The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments" also apply to the amateur precursors of the current major tournaments, or not? You're opinions would be appreciated. The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Lilian WatsonThe spelling of this player's name was discussed before, but no conclusion was reached. In addition to 100 Years of Wimbledon, by Lance Tingay, and The Official History of the Championships, by John Barrett, her name is also spelled Lilian in the 2010 Wimbledon Compendium, by Alan Little, published by the AELTC (who should know). I would submit that these sources carry greater weight than 21st. century newspapers, which seem to be the only source for the spelling Lillian. Rmallett (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Short tennisI came across the article short tennis, and I was wondering, since the article states "it is recognised as a common training method by the ITF", why there were no interwiki links. So, I looked around, and found fr:Mini-tennis and de:Kleinfeldtennis, but I am not sure whether they are the same or a different variant on tennis. Please could someone clarify this? All three are played on a smaller court than normal, and are designed to be helpful for beginners and small children. Coyets (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
10-and-under tennis was mandated by the ITF in August 2010 ITF RULE CHANGE and is practiced in countries around the world ITF PLAY AND STAY Other names for this program include QuickStart Tennis, Mini Tennis, Little Tennis. This is a huge development in tennis teaching worldwide (especially in the USA) and there are copious amounts of data available on it.Operalives (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Tournament namesShould we begin to name the articles of tennis tournaments by their common name. In F1 articles, we don't use the sponsored names, just the common names, eg. we don't use name Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix, we use Malaysian Grand Prix. Hardly nobody speaks about BNP Paribas Masters or Heineken Open, instead we talk about Paris Masters or Auckland ATP tournament. --August90 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Queens Club just emailed me with a short answer... the name of the trophy is called the "The Queens Cup." I tried to find a source by googling the name but came up dry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC) So would it be a good system to refer to a certain year's tournament with its official sponsored name and to refer to a tournament in general with its non-sponsored/generic name? --August90 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Another tournament whose name I've been wondering is Canada Masters/Rogers Cup. Its article calls that tournament with three names; the title is Rogers Cup, the first bolded name is Canada Masters, and the title of the infobox is Canadian Open. I don't know whether that tournament is anymore even formally the Canadian Open ch'ship, or is it just the tourny that used to be the Canadian Open. If it can still be considered to be the Canadian Open, then it would be relevant to talk about that tournament as Canadian Open. But if it's not anymore the Canadian Open, then I think the generic name should be Canada Masters. Of course, women's tournament isn't a Masters event, but Canada Masters would at least be a non-sponsored generic name. --August90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC) attention on Oscar WegnerAs you can see the Oscar Wegner article has been recreated by Operalives. After having a first look on it I've easily found a dozen errors regarding its references and fetched a dozen tags on them. I follow the good faith principle, and assume that the creator lacks enough Wikipedia experience, otherwise I would nominate it for deletion for the second time though. I'll give it a grace period for a month or so and see if it improves but if not, AfD will be inevitable. In its current form the article is so gappy in its references that it equals as almost having none of them. Please read it for yourself because I'm afraid I'm too bold with a newbie. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Lajbi for your attention on the new Oscar Wegner page. It is intended to educate readers and to counter the previous suggestions that Mr. Wegner is not a notable person in tennis. Having spoken personally with or been privy to conversations with many of the greatest names in tennis regarding Mr. Wegner there is no doubt that he is very significant as both a witness to and participant in the pre-open era international circuit as well as a keen observer of the open era and major contributor to the development of modern tennis teaching techniques. The problem lies in published sources to validate statements of people such as Rod Laver, Charlie Pasarell, Ray Moore, Bud Collins, Butch Buchholz, Patrick McEnroe, Jose Higueras, Cliff Drysdale, etc. Since I do not have such material in writing I have used whatever I could find to substantiate events and opinions regarding Mr. Wegner. I appreciate any and all help in improving the page's content and citations as it deserves to remain on Wikipedia for the edification of readers. I am a newbie so I want to learn from you all through this. Please be specific in your comments with solutions, not just problems with the article. This is a learning experience for me, and hopefully for you as well.Operalives (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:RadarsnoblesKeeps conterversally merging the ATP International series and series gold pages into the 250 and 500 series articles. This has not happened on the WTA side i.e. tier 1 and 2 haven't been merged into the premier pages. He also had the cheek to say that he had discussed this somewhere, which he had not. I checked his contributions, the talk pages of said article the tennis page and this page and there is diddley squat of this 'so called consensus' So it's really a heads up keep an eye on him please 194.66.216.40 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Women's tennis in the United StatesI created Women's tennis in the United States. It is very much a stub. Would love some help improving it. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Do you all think this has become notable enough for an article?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Tennis event template for MSEsSince there has been no reply to my previous post after a month, I am asking that someone from WP:TENNIS comment on the design for {{Tennis event MSE}}. More information is available at the previous post here. Hopefully someone cares to answer this before the tennis event at the 2011 PanAm Games rolls around. Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAGIt appears that tennis articles are in breach of MOSFLAG in that they are using flags in infobox and also to show the birthplace of the players. Is not the goal of wikiprojects to promote their article to featured article status which can't be done as long as they are in breach of our style guidelines. Mo ainm~Talk 11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I will not be responding to you any longer, and will wait till someone who at least can put up some rational argument for the stance of the project. Mo ainm~Talk 14:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
So the solution, for your example of Andy Murray above, is to show the Union Flag instead of the Saltire, in the infobox of someone who very publicly self-identifes as Scottish rather than British. Brilliant. Daicaregos (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Break Goodness. Once again, for sports people per wikipedia "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." For Murray that would be Great Britain. Now this is only flags, not words. I see no reason that a player's non-sport nationality can't be there without a flag although that info is usually right in the first sentence of the article above the infobox. You'll note that Murray's is a tennis biography infobox and it summarizes pertinent tennis info about the man... e.g. he plays for GB in tennis events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No editor has given a reason why the MOS is ignored by this project, yes on certain limited occasions tennis players represent a country but the majority of the time they are not representing anyone but themselves, so could someone explain why we should ignore " flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Example look at 2006 Wimbledon Championships now that is IMO a disgrace of an article with flagicons taking over the page never mind the infobox, what encyclopaedic value is the addition of the flags to that article considering it isn't an event were international teams are represented? And has every single person listed actually played in Davis Cup?Mo ainm~Talk 23:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy MurrayAndy Murray is Scottish. Country should be listed as Scotland or if nationality is used it should be Scottish, so that must be listed as his country/nationality. The ITF (Davis Cup) and IOC (Olympic) games will not allow him to compete on the Scottish national team, since his Davis Cup team and NOC in the Olympic games is Great Britain. By wikipedia rules it would mandate no Scottish flag to be utilized, and says that for teams the flag of Great Britain is to be used. By the way, tennis players are defined by their nationality in every event they play. By the way unless a player plays the requiste number of matches in Davis Cup/Fed Cup they are prohibited from being allowed to play in the Olympic Games, which if injured they can get a waiver, but I don't want to go their. Also, the ITF governs the grand slams in tennis, which mandates national affiliation to compete in the slam, and they are the biggest event on the calendar in tennis and takes place four times in a year. I just think we should add one little tiny label to the infobox to comply with the spirit of the rule.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be silly to put a Scottish flag next to Andy Murray's name, when every WP:reliable source I've seen lists his country as "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom", and all show the Union flag only. (e.g. ATP, Australian Open, Roland Garros, etc.) Remember, this is an encylocpedia—we report what external reliable sources say, not create new synthesis of information. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hockey exampleHockey infobox has it done correctly by the rules because they use national team just look at Ryan Kesler, and they link it to the national hockey team. I could do this for tennis players to the Davis/Fed Cup and Olympic teams, which would be well within the policy like the Hockey player are right now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing existing Wimbledon draws pagesNow that I have nearly finished adding draws and scores for the early Wimbledon tournaments (in singles anyway) I see that (at least) the early 1920s Wimbledon pages that already exist are slightly different :- a) the first set of draw results on the page only give semi-finals and final. Would it be better to give the quarter finals here as well ? b) only the players' surnames are given. Would it be better to add first names where known ? c) players are always linked to their (usually non-existent) biographical page. Would it be better to display their names in plain text if they don't have a biographical page ? I seem to remember that this was discussed before in another context, but can't find it now. And, regarding Andy Murray, AFAIK he has never represented Scotland at any international event, so (until Scotland declares independence) the saltire should not be used.Rmallett (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
a) quarter-finals should be included if we want consistency across the board b} add surnames where known (or initial if not known), again for consistency c) link them to the pages even if they are redlinks - this should hopefully encourage people to click and create stubs for missing players. 03md 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Tie-break scores.We need a comment in tennis draws mentioning that the winner's tie-break score has to be included, as I've added them in to about 25 articles, and every week a majority of them are reverted. It's normally a fairly simple exercise to revert and undo these edits, but a simple comment such as <!-- Remember to include the tie-break score of both participants, not just the loser as per this. --> SellymeTalk 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A daunting task my friend. Well I just ripped out the following tonight. fixed all the ndash/hyphen problems and tiebreaks. I'd done all the singles pages of the Majors long ago.
So we have in prose, and in standard tournament templates, any other uses we've forgotten? SellymeTalk 01:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Horia_Tec%C4%83u_at_the_2010_US_Open_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daniele_Bracciali_at_the_2010_US_Open_01.jpg){kind=link}